Tag Archives: Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person

Fr. Thomas Berg: “Challenging Totalitarianism in 2010″

Why Catholics Defend Political Freedom

Hopefully over the Christmas weekend we were all aware that, while we took advantage of the political and religious freedoms we enjoy in the West, in other parts of the world, some persons were paying the ultimate price in a struggle for those freedoms.

In China, the communist government, ignoring the protests of a dozen nations, sentenced 53-year-old literary critic Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison. His crime? Peacefully agitating for democracy. In Iran, thousands of agitators for democracy — broadly acclaimed as “freedom fighters” — continued their efforts in opposition to their country’s standing Islamic totalitarian government in spite of violent and deadly reprisals.

Both Mr. Liu and the freedom fighters, as noted in by the editors of the Wall Street Journal last Monday, are viewed as dangers by their respective totalitarian states because they wield “the power of the unbreakable individual spirit.”

What do the Mr. Liu’s of the world in countries like China or North Korea ultimately intend? Beyond democratic reforms, what are the ultimate goals of the freedom movement in Iran? I don’t profess to know. Are they fighting, for instance, for religious freedom writ large, one that would be inclusive of Judaism and Christianity free of harassment? We can only hope so. History has often demonstrated that once hard sought after political freedom is attained — and we might go all the way back to the French revolution — the freedom impulse is too often overpowered by the impulse to sanction every form of licentiousness and moral depravity.

But as I pondered these developments, I could not help wondering what Karol Wojtyla — Pope John Paul the Great — would think of all this, the Pope of 1989, the Pope who with his own unbreakable individual spirit, dealt a death blow to the then regnant totalitarianisms beyond the Iron Curtain.

And I think the answer is simple: he would be watching these developments with great hope and high expectations. He would be supporting them in much the same way he supported the initial impulse of the Solidarity movement in his native Poland: by reminding freedom fighters of his most signal and prescient insight, namely, that totalitarian regimes rise on a grossly distorted vision of the human person, and that they fall when enough of that regime’s citizens get the true vision.

“Authentic democracy is possible,” he wrote in his 1991 encyclical Centessimus Annus, “only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person.” The fundamental flaw and moral depravity of any totalitarianism — communist, Islamic, or otherwise — is to sacrifice the supreme value of the good of the person, subordinating it to the larger project of the totalitarian state.

It was his own experience of totalitarian brutality in Poland that moved John Paul to be an outspoken advocate of any impulse for genuine political freedom, because he understood that a genuinely democratic way of ordering public life was the best seedbed for human and Christian flourishing:

The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate. Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends (Centessimus Annus, 46).

But in the same breath that he upheld the time-tested value of democracy, he was equally adamant that democratic freedoms amount to little without the possibility of encountering the full truth about human reality:

But freedom attains its full development only by accepting the truth. In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation and man is exposed to the violence of passion and to manipulation, both open and hidden (idem).

The conquest of genuine democratic freedoms is an enormous first step toward attaining that fullness of truth. And that’s why Christians need to support these movements throughout the world.

Could 2010 be for Iran what 1989 was for Poland? We’ll know in the coming weeks and months. In the meantime, we can only hope that divine Providence will allow the freedom fighters in Iran and the Mr. Liu’s of the world to get their hands on a copy of Centessimus Annus. Or perhaps they already have.

Fr. Thomas Berg is Executive Director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

Share

Some thoughts about public discourse, by Fr. Thomas Berg

Taking a step back from the healthcare debate

Readers will forgive me for waxing philosophical for just one column. But let’s take a step back from healthcare reform, unemployment, the economy, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Gitmo, water-boarding, gay marriage and stem cell research to think for a minute about just how the exchange of ideas is faring in the public square these days.

It is Christopher Tollefson, professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, who has me thinking about this. His recently published and timely thoughts on the nature of public discourse are well worth a read. Tollefsen explains that public discourse is crucial to the common good and should transpire precisely in public forums where the general populace can have access to the exchange of ideas and even participate. As to the meaning of ‘discourse’, Tollefson continues:

“Discourse” indicates the crucial means by which [consideration of public issues] is to be pursued. Proponents of competing positions must communicate — not just to those who already share their views, but to those who don’t; they must be part of a public conversation. This conversation is not just, however, an exchange of views. It must be an exchange of reasons. It must have the character of a public argument.

So, public discourse achieves its common-good purpose most effectively when it entails, above and beyond a mere exchange of views or beliefs, actual argumentation.

Now, we are in fact absolutely afloat in public argumentation these days, perhaps like never before in American history. As Robert T. Miller, assistant professor at the Villanova University School of Law, has observed:

Generally speaking, our society is more concerned with producing and responding to arguments than probably any other in the history of the world. Whether the issue is abortion or gay rights, tax policy or the trade deficit, global warming or third-world debt, everyone seems ready to adduce arguments in support of some position or other.

So, does the fact that we are awash in argumentation on pressing moral issues bode well for the moral health of our nation? I think we can be cautiously optimistic. Granted, the mere abundance of argumentation in the public square does not, in and of itself, assure a healthy moral fabric. It all depends on the kind of argumentation we should be demanding of those who debate moral issues in the public square.

First, we should demand that it unfold in genuine civility. Furthermore, our exchanges should obey the rules of logic and avoid linguistic fallacies. Most of all, we should insist that our exchanges get down to the level of first principles. In other words, our public discourse should require each side to articulate the most fundamental assumptions on which a particular argument is based. When discourse fails to do so, opposing sides all too often end up talking past each other and never explaining the reasons for the positions held.

If, for instance, the issue is embryonic stem cell research, the public interest would be best served if both sides articulate the reasons for asserting the personhood of the embryo or denying it. If the issue is euthanasia, both sides should articulate the meaning of human personhood, how body relates to self, and what ‘quality of life means’, and so on. The common good is not served when public discourse ignores sharp disagreements at the level of first principles.

Alexis de Tocqueville once famously asserted that “in the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.” Sadly, this parroting of the opinions of others is another major pitfall of public discourse, and a further consequence of failing to argue at the level of first principles. Such unreflective repetition of argumentation can give the impression of robust public discourse, but in reality if falls painfully short.

We can and should do our part to ensure that public discourse is vigorous and healthy by striving to avoid such pitfalls. In so doing, whether over the dinner table, on e-media, or in our town halls, we strengthen the moral fiber of our nation.

Fr. Thomas Berg is Executive Director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

Share